RE: Problem to post at HTTP level

> Fish,
>
>      The extra '--'  DO belong at the end of the last
> boundary.  Omitting
> them is actually a common mistake.  The misspelling of
> Content-length is
> probably what his problem was.
>
> Fred

Huh. I wasn't aware of that, but I can see that you're probably
correct.

In section "19.2 Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges" of RFC 2616
(HTTP/1.1), it provides an example 206 response as follows:

   HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
   Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
   Content-type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=THIS_STRING_SEPARATES

   --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES
   Content-type: application/pdf
   Content-range: bytes 500-999/8000

   ...the first range...
   --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES
   Content-type: application/pdf
   Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000

   ...the second range
   --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES--

From this I can see that even though the boundary string is defined as
"THIS_STRING_SEPARATES", it's actually preceded by two dashes except
in the last case where it is also followed by two dashes as well.

In section "3.7.2 Multipart Types" it makes reference to RFC documents
2046 ("Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media
Types") and 1867 ("Form-based File Upload in HTML"). I assume this is
where further details regarding the usage of 'boundary' parameter may
be found?

In any case, all I was pointing out was that according to my manual
counting of the number of bytes in his entity body, the extra
dash-dash following the last boundary string puts him two bytes over
his stated length of 141. If what you say is true (and, as I said, it
appears you are), shouldn't he then use Content-Length: 143 and not
141 as he has??  (Or did I just count wrong?)


  "Fish" (David B. Trout)
     fish@infidels.org
       ICQ# 25302291

Received on Friday, 7 July 2000 00:41:22 UTC